My relative Micah is working for the formal organization and is disappointed by the practices and rules that are dominant there. My activities in flexible organization with horizontal management relations stimulated him to apply all his efforts to work in such an organization or at least change his own formal organization as it possible. The situation is rather difficult since Micah does not have sufficient education for the former and necessary knowledge needed for the understanding the essence of formal organization. Base on our own, I will try to analyze formal organizations and the trends in their development and evolution.
As Macionis suggests, formal organization had evolved during past two centuries which were characterized by the growth of the state, civil society and capitalist enterprises. As Barnard says, ‘however individuals stand outside many organizations they have multiple relations with them’ (Barnard, 1962, p. 100).
The spectrum of existing formal organization is well-described by Etzioni including coercive, normative, and utilitarian organizations. Micah is a member of a formal organization which combines both the features of utilitarianism and coerciveness.
Formal organizations of such types historically developed in the form of bureaucracy which is known for centuries and first is said to appear in Ancient China. With the development of capitalist society and technology, bureaucracy transformed into the centre of rationality which in its turn was celebrate as the dominant mode of human thought. This situation was in depth analyzed by Weber who claimed that bureaucratic organizations utilize such kind of formal rationality which alienates human relations and transforms them into instrumental processes.
As Macionis suggests formal organizations are characterized by several important features which are often described among the primary reasons for their repressive nature. They include high specialization which is often ruining for flexibility of goals realization for the decision to be implemented should pass different levels of organization which makes it ineffective. Flexible organizations such where I work overcome these problems by horizontal and team decision-making and initiative process which allows ordinary managers and operative workers realize their duties more effectively.
Another characteristic of formal organization which Micah is disappointed with is its hierarchical character which implies depersonalization of relations between people and their alienation from each other. The communication between upper and lower chains of management is precluded by formal reglamentation and rules are not always effective.
Flexible organization resolute this problem by stimulating down-up communication which allows promoting initiatives and influence on the part of ordinary workers. This position is stipulated by the fact that horizontal segments are more aware of existing problems and capacities and thus can offer more rational and effective solutions and propositions.
When focus of formal organization is concerned it is often said to be task-oriented. However, there is no denying the importance of the fact that task-oriented approach is often characteristic of flexible organizations, it is not realized at the expense of sound human relations practices and procedures. Modern flexible enterprises are centered on developing human capital as the main instrument of growth and development. Micah should know that formal organizations evolved from traditional Weberian definition through several phases including scientific managements, resolving gender, class and race problems.
Today’s formal organizations are more flexible and if Micah’s organization is not it has capacity to change is necessary policies would be adopted. This can be achieved if they implement the strategies of creative freedom which promotes imitativeness and worker’s creativity. These policies develop employees which are interested in their organization’s success as it becomes more and more effective due to their efforts.
With the development of horizontal and human relations approaches in formal organization, the formation of competitive work teams copying the model of business enterprises is likely. State bureaucracy and other formal institutions are to realize more ambitious tasks that require creativity and other virtues which can be only achieved with the help of competitiveness, group work and coordination. Another element that is likely to foster the ‘flexibilization’ of formal organizations is technology.
As Von Glinow and Mohrman state, ’Technology, acting directly and indirectly, is the most powerful shaper of global strategies and organizations today’ (1990, p. 38). Technology now should be used too create flat ecosystem but not strict control mechanism. Technology has such democratizing capability and is achievable inside the format of formal organization. By distributing responsibilities equally and lowering the number of decision-making levels, technology may prove to be an important factor in organizational flexibility.
To sum it up, all possibilities, experience, knowledge are in place to help develop a flexible organization which would protect the interests of Micah and other people who are negatively affected by ‘McDonaldization’ of society.
References
Barnard, Chester I. (1962). Functions of the Executive. p.96-113.
Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing.
Von Glinow, M. A. & Mohrman, S. A. (Eds.). (1990). Managing Complexity in High Technology Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Macionis J.J. (2005).Society: the Basics. Prentice Hall. 8th edition.
Ogawa R. T. Molly R. Crain L., Ball T. CHAT-IT: Toward Conceptualizing Learning in the Context of Formal Organizations Educational Researcher. Washington: Mar 2008. Vol. 37, Iss. 2; p. 83.
Political Science. (1971) A SAGE Full-Text Collection T. O. JACOBS. Leadership and Exchange in Formal Organizations. Pp. xiv, 352. Alexandria, Va.: Human Resources Research Organization.